So here I am hoping to jump-start a dead career by re-certifying, and now you're mentioning that the opportunity for re-certifying is, in itself, partly mitigated by having a career that doesn't need jump-starting? Uh oh ...

I don't think that was actually said. I have met both types in my discussions with those thinking about a nontrad return to LS. Friends of mine bored in their stale careers or unhappy with their station in life have decided to pursue their legal education. Others who have accomplished enough in one field may decide to move on to legal studies as a sort of breath of fresh air after a successful pursuit of something different. Personally, I would not worry so much about the nontrad bump or lack thereof and concentrate on a solid LSAT score, a killer PS, and some really good LORs.

You will need at least one LOR from a former professor. If you do not have that lined up, start now. It can take some time for us non-trad types. Beyond that, search out a manager from another division/area/team in your place of employment or past place who you know likes you and try for that even if they were not a direct supervisor. A direct supervisor is of course better if you can get one. You might try to get two old profs while you are at it. I found it easy to get one from an old engineering prof even though he didn't remember me from Adam. He asked for my old work, transcript, writing sample, resume, and then wrote me a nice one. Of course he was sympathetic, having done the non-trad LS thing himself.

I actually exchanged e-mails with the head of admissions at Duke on this topic. My one school sample says.... meet their LOR requirements or risk the consequences And, final_id, I am also twenty years out. Your prof LORs matter for the same reason your GPA matters. It helps answer the question as to your academic success record as an undergrad. It allows for a semi-level playing field with all the traditional applicants.

I actually exchanged e-mails with the head of admissions at Duke on this topic. My one school sample says.... meet their LOR requirements or risk the consequences And, final_id, I am also twenty years out. Your prof LORs matter for the same reason your GPA matters. It helps answer the question as to your academic success record as an undergrad. It allows for a semi-level playing field with all the traditional applicants.

I wonder if this is their way of saying we don't want non-trads. I'm 20+ years out and most of my professors are long gone - moved on or dead. In addition, I haven't tried to stay in touch with any of them. There is no way I'm even going to track them down. I'd only get a luke warm recommendation anyway, because they wouldn't remember me. I'll take my chances with two very good employer related recommendations.

BTW, I spoke to several admissions directors at the DC Forum a couple of months ago and I didn't get the impression from any of them that they wanted academic recommendations for me. Quite honestly, if I could have handed them my GPA, LSAT score and resume there, I think a couple would have admitted me on the spot. The only school that came right out and said I might not fit in was BU. Michigan said they did not get many, because no one wants to move their family to Michigan. Other than that, both my husband and I came away feeling that being a non-trad was certainly not a hinderance and more likely, an advantage.

I am uber geek apparently. I've stayed in touch with my college advisor, professor in many of my classes and sponsor of some of the clubs I led, since 1990 He's THRILLED I'm finally going to law school. He's been nagging me for years.

Duke wants non-trads. But you still have to meet the same minimum application requirements as anyone else.

If you worry about a lukewarm letter of recommendation from a professor, I'm sure you would be fine submitting an extra LOR from a work supervisor. If you aren't able to get letters of rec from your professors, get a letter from an administrator saying that your specific professors have passed on or are no longer employed at the institution.

It probably depends what tier of law school you're applying for. A top law school wants successful people who will go on to be even more successful. Not having any good LORs (despite having a bachelor's, a master's, doctoral studies, and 10-15 years WE) is a pretty big red flag. My suggestions? A) Hire a reputable admissions counselor like Anna Ivey. You are probably a candidate who can turn these negatives into positives with some help. B) Ask admissions deans if they will meet with you to discuss your special circumstances (whistleblowing situation.)

The non-trads at my school were all pretty strong candidates, but that may just be a function of my law school's overall competitiveness.

I've had a habitual problem throughout my life of not being able to "connect" with anyone who is below a certain level of intelligence (see work experience, above!). So I'm kind of entrapped in enforced intellectual snobbery. I don't MEAN to be like that but it just comes out that way.

That cracked me up. Sorry. Just did. I am so the reverse of that, finding it easier to connect with those people for whom intellectual pursuits are secondary at best. Happy hour anyone?